Glyphosate: an effective ecological herbicide, not carcinogenic, not endocrine disrupting

[GuyGadebois]

Yes, you don't see much ...

And you only see what suits you.

Conclusion
The acute (dead) toxicity of the herbicide (Glycel 410 SL) was manifested in the population of Eudrilus eugeniae when the amount of glyphosate reached 7,80 ± 0,29 g / l or 3578 ± 14,22 mg glyphosate / kg dry soil. This LC50 was higher than the concentration of 5,47 g / l, recommended by the manufacturer. This suggests that the rational application of this herbicide would not have a lethal effect on earthworms. Regarding the chronic effect of this herbicide, it has resulted in a reduction in the rate of hatching and the number of juveniles / cocoon. The concentration of the glyphosate solution (2 g / l) which reduced the rate of cocoon hatching and the number of individuals / cocoon, was lower than the concentration recommended (5,47 g / l) by the manufacturer . This suggests that the use of glyphosate herbicides may cause a decline in earthworms; which could damage the natural fertility of the soil and an ecosystem imbalance.

We are far from an "ecological" weedkiller as the title of this topic of m ... promises.

[Obamot]

All I see is that it is harmful for earthworms from a certain concentration recommended by the manufacturer (not the smallest 2g / l). Point.

Yes, you don't see much ... In particular the difference between spraying a solution once a year at a rate of 1/10000 compared to the mass of soil potentially impacted on the one hand and permanently worms living in the same solution at the rate of a third of the mass of the soil on the other hand.

For once I agree with you!
Glyphosate is so harmless that you could drink a large glass of it, it wouldn't hurt you!

Good luck to you and Izentrop!

[sicetaitsimple]

[

Conclusion
The acute (dead) toxicity of the herbicide (Glycel 410 SL) was manifested in the population of Eudrilus eugeniae when the amount of glyphosate reached 7,80 ± 0,29 g / l or 3578 ± 14,22 mg glyphosate / kg dry soil. This LC50 was higher than the concentration of 5,47 g / l, recommended by the manufacturer. This suggests that the rational application of this herbicide would not have a lethal effect on earthworms. Regarding the chronic effect of this herbicide, it has resulted in a reduction in the rate of hatching and the number of juveniles / cocoon. The concentration of the glyphosate solution (2 g / l) which reduced the rate of cocoon hatching and the number of individuals / cocoon, was lower than the concentration recommended (5,47 g / l) by the manufacturer . This suggests that the use of glyphosate herbicides may cause a decline in earthworms; which could damage the natural fertility of the soil and an ecosystem imbalance.

Great conclusion from our Ivorian researchers! Do not drink glyphosate solution to meet your fluid needs, even at the dilution doses recommended by the manufacturer. Even if you "dilute" it in 2/3 of "solid" food
We will still thank the dead earthworms that contributed to this remarkable advance in science.

[GuyGadebois]

(And Kiki can't understand the conclusions, too bad for him ...)

Glyphosate Causes Disease Over Generations, New Study Says
A new study on glyphosate offers an unprecedented look, against the current scientific literature, on the controversial pesticide. Research indicates that glyphosate can cause illness in second and third generations of exposed rats. Published in Scientific Reports, the study is a new setback for the synthetic molecule.

Current studies of the world's most controversial herbicide may not have looked for the effects of glyphosate where it's needed. This is suggested by the study published last week by the peer-reviewed journal Scientific Reports, itself part of the prestigious Nature Publishing Group (Assessment of Glyphosate Induced Epigenetic Transgenerational Inheritance of Pathologies and Sperm Epimutations: Generational Toxicology. Deepika Kubsad, Eric E. Nilsson, Stephanie E. King, Ingrid Sadler-Riggleman, Daniel Beck & Michael K. Skinner. Scientific Reports, volume 9, Article number: 6372 - 2019).

https://mrmondialisation.org/le-glyphos ... lle-etude/
The study in question:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598- ... YYlhUuGMR0
Come on Kiki, go get it, go!

[sicetaitsimple]

Come on Kiki, go get it, go!

Well yes, when we have no more arguments on a specific subject (the Ivorian study on glyphosate and earthworms), we must try to find a touch within 22m.
You will notice that I did not give a specific opinion on the effects of glyphosate, just that this study was stupid (but we can do scientifically correct studies even if their object is stupid).
Did you order your 100l of pastis?

[GuyGadebois]

Your shortcomings are noticed by your answer. Question yourself and come back later. You never know, I might be inclined to answer you something other than "go and show you" ... Glyphosate being a much bigger problem than your egotistical little projections that I don't care about.

[Obamot]

Come on Kiki, go get it, go!

Will not find ...
Searching double blind makes him believe that it is cited ...

[izentrop]

https://mrmondialisation.org/le-glyphos ... lle-etude/
The study in question:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598- ... YYlhUuGMR0
Come on Kiki, go get it, go!

Mr. globalization, conspiratorial site par excellence.

Another Agri-bashing that was denounced in its time by a molecular biologist in particular:

- It's not Nature but Scientific reports
- intraperitoneal injection
- 25mg / kg / day
- or 50X the acceptable daily dose (ADI of 0.5mg / kg / day)
So yes, injecting glyphosate into the belly of a pregnant woman is not advised at all.

[GuyGadebois]

Monsieur globalization a conspiracy site par excellence.

Again you jump with both feet in your mire. The study is NOT done by Mr. Globalization. But you don't care, do you? Gruuuuiiikkkk Izy. So go drink some of your piss. Huh, better believe Monsanto and the rots that defend it than independent scientists who work for the good of humanity. By the way do you have children and grandchildren? I hope not.
I'm posting this because you haven't READ the study, since you don't really care:

Conclusions

In summary, glyphosate has been shown to promote epigenetic transgenerational inheritance of disease and pathology through germination (ie, sperm). Negligible pathology was observed in the F0 and F1 generations, while a significant increase in pathology and disease was observed in the F2 generation grandchildren and the F3 generation great grandchildren. Therefore, glyphosate appears to pose a low or negligible toxic risk for direct exposure, but promotes generational toxicology in future generations. Observations suggest that generational toxicology should be incorporated into the risk assessment of glyphosate and all other potential toxicants, as previously described. The ability of glyphosate and other environmental toxins to impact our future generations must be taken into account and is potentially as important as the direct exposure toxicology performed today for risk assessment.

[sicetaitsimple]

In summary, glyphosate has been shown to promote epigenetic transgenerational inheritance of disease and pathology through germination (ie, sperm). Negligible pathology was observed in the F0 and F1 generations, while a significant increase in pathology and disease was observed in the F2 generation grandchildren and the F3 generation great grandchildren. Therefore, glyphosate appears to pose a low or negligible toxic risk for direct exposure, but promotes generational toxicology in future generations. Observations suggest that generational toxicology should be incorporated into the risk assessment of glyphosate and all other potential toxicants, as previously described. The ability of glyphosate and other environmental toxins to impact our future generations must be taken into account and is potentially as important as the direct exposure toxicology performed today for risk assessment.

There frankly, to say that we did a study proving nothing, it's perfect!"The ability of glyphosate and other environmental toxics to impact our future generations must be considered and is potentially as important as the direct exposure toxicology performed today for the risk assessment.

PS remember that the study concerns highly exposed rats ......